With still more positiveness, and with greater force, has the
objection which is based on progress from a state of imperfection to one of perfection,
been urged in relation to 115the Messianic plan of Jesus.142142 The phrase,
‘Plan of Jesus,’ has in recent times been so much
in vogue, that it may seem paradoxical to consider it inappropriate; and yet it
is utterly so. The devising of a plan implies an activity of mind which is
far too strongly individual and subjective to be ascribed to Jesus. So also the
acting constantly according to a plan, springs from a one-sided predominance
of reflection, such as He never manifested. That which He was commissioned to do
and to establish was marked out for Him by God and history,—was recognised, not
devised by Him. Hence, although we are not warranted in saying that there was no
connection between His various acts, seeing that in all He did and said He was possessed
and inspired by the loftiest idea still, to assume that all He did was deliberately
planned and intended beforehand, in the common sense of the words, reduces Him to
a lower position than that which He actually occupied, as One filled with the Spirit
and with God. The older terms, office and work of Christ, have much
greater congruity than the modern expression plan. If, however, this term
plan, having usage on its side, is to be retained, let us understand by it
only, as Hase very correctly defines it in his Leben Jesu, § 40, ‘His
subjective conception of the office to which God had appointed Him, without
reference to the collateral use of the word in the sense of: what is arbitrary,
the mere result of reflection.’ Compare Neander’s Life of Jesus, pp. 128, etc., fifth ed. Jesus, it has been represented,
did not, at His first appearance, recognise clearly the aim of His life; His first
true recognition of it was the result of a catastrophe affecting both. His inner
and outer life. It is allowed that, from the very beginning, the fundamental feature
of His plan was the formation of mankind into a community by means of religious
love; but it is contended that at first this was mingled with political views and
tendencies, since He hoped, by the exaltation of Israel, to found a theocracy into
which all nations should gradually be drawn. It was not till afterwards, when this
notion came into conflict with the sense of the nation and its rulers, and was thereby
frustrated, and its impracticability exposed, that there arose in the mind of Jesus,
and that not without a struggle, the idea of a spiritual kingdom of God; and thus,
we are told, it was that Jesus was transformed from a Jewish Messiah into the Redeemer
of the world.

This view, which even at a former period was broached by 116certain of the learned, has been fully and acutely carried out
in more recent times.143143 Following in the steps of Von Ammon, De Wette, and some others,
Hase, in the first ed. of his Leben Jesu, published at Leipsic in 1829,
propounded at length the thought of a twofold plan of Jesus,—of a plan which was
at first theocratical, and only became purely, religious subsequently. In
opposition to his view and development of the subject, appeared Heubner, in an
appendix to the fifth ed. of Reinhard’s
Plan Jesu, Wittenb. 1830, pp. 394-407; Lücke, in two programmes of the year
1831, under the title, Examinatur, quæ speciosius nuper commendata est, sententia
de mutato per eventa, adeoque sensim emendato Christi consilio; and J. E. Osiander,
in his article, Ueber die neueren Bearbeitungen des Lebens Jesu von Paulus und Hase, in the Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1831, No. i. pp. 145-148.
My controversy also, in the second ed. of this work, was with Hase. To this opposition,
especially as conducted by Lücke, Hase, with a noble love of truth, did justice,
partly in his Theologische Streitschriften, Leipsic 1834, pp. 61-102, and
partly in the subsequent editions of his Leben Jesu. He adopted from his
antagonists as much as his own convictions would allow him, and sought to unite
the opposed views in the following general result, § 50:—‘Apart from single political
institutions, which are by nature transitory, the plait of Jesus undoubtedly related
to a moral reformation and a spiritual kingdom; but still the Divine law which He
put in force was clearly meant in the course of time to subdue the world, or rather
to pervade it as its highest general law; and He, the King of Truth, intended
to become also a King of the world.’ ‘Jesus must, at one time or other, have
examined and rejected those Messianic hopes which bore a theocratic character,
for the Messianic faith could only reach Him in that form. But there is no proof
whatever that He was led to this examination and rejection by hard experience in
the midst of His career, and not by the clear judgment of His own mind ere He
entered on His work.’ It has been, indeed, substantially retracted by its most
distinguished advocate; and yet it was again brought forward, though in a modified
form, a short time since.144144 Viz. by Keim in his work, Die menschliche Entwickelung
Jesu, pp. 28, etc. He advocates the view that it was not till a certain definite period
of His public ministry that the perception that the Messiah was to be a sufferer
arose upon the mind of Jesus, and that it was at the same time that His idea
of a Messianic kingdom, which was to be in the first place a Jewish one, expanded
into that of a universal spiritual kingdom. It is a view which, if established, would evidently be
followed by important results; it would essentially affect that image of Jesus which
Christendom has hitherto found in its Gospels and preserved in its faith; it would
banish the idea of a perfectly wise and holy Redeemer, 117who by His spiritual greatness is able to free men from error
and sin. Looked at in this light, we should not be able to feel that Jesus possessed
even a high degree of insight, much less that He was perfect in intellectual strength.
According to this hypothesis, He must not only in general have struggled through
error to more correct knowledge, but even through such error as He might have avoided,
had He carefully studied the condition of His people before commencing His work.
Evidently, too, He had not well considered the whole compass of His plan; for what
He would have done in opposition to the existing Roman authority and rule, when
once possessed of the highest theocratic power, remains an unsolved, and by no means
unimportant difficulty. He had not, in fine, that high, independent power of spirit
which the moral Deliverer of humanity should and must have; for instead of fighting
His way with a sure step through difficulties and hindrances, as one truly self-reliant
would have done, it was the unfavourable turn which His affairs took that first
brought Him to a right mind; and then, in place of joyfully and enthusiastically
grasping the higher thought that dawned upon Him, He fell into sadness and dismay,
as He looked back on His shattered hopes, and forward to a future in which there
awaited Him a cross instead of a crown.145145 Hase, in the first edition of the
Leben Jesu, § 84. Differently in the second and later editions, § 49. Such a Christ does not control, but is
Himself controlled by circumstances; He does not distinctly and consciously propose
to Himself His own aim, but has it gradually formed for, and forced upon Him, by
events and accidents; He is not the Lord, but the creature of the times. If the
veritable historical Christ were such a one as this, the Christian Church would
scarcely be able to reverence in him the light and Saviour of the world; nor could
He satisfy the requirements which we are compelled to make of the Redeemer 118of mankind. Such insight into the plan of Jesus as would
be attained in this way, would be dearly bought: happily, however, the view presented
above has no solid foundation in fact.

The main support of the opinion that Jesus had at first a theocratic
plan of the nature just indicated, is His appropriation to Himself of the character
of Messiah; and the Messiah, according to the prophets, and still more in the view
of His contemporaries, was to be not only a religious and moral, but also a political
deliverer. It is urged: If Jesus did not mean to awaken political hopes, He would
not have given Himself out for the Messiah; but inasmuch as He did call Himself
the Messiah, the political element must evidently have entered into His plan. This
conclusion can, however, only be drawn when certain of His utterances are isolated,
and viewed apart from their connection with the whole of His teaching and works.
Jesus did appropriate to Himself the idea of the Messiah as a true and eternal one; but in the consciousness of being Himself
the promised One, He also glorified
the idea by manifesting its high religious realization. In doing this He would have
acted very injudiciously, if He had begun by theoretical discussions. His true course
was rather first to realize in His own life the idea of the Messiah, and then to
bring Himself forward as the promised One, under that aspect which He had thus rendered
actual and evident. At the same time, however, from the very beginning Jesus declared
in divers ways, that what He sought to found was a Divine kingdom of piety and love,—a
union of mankind on the basis of a moral deliverance.

When Jesus spoke of His kingdom, it was equivalent to
speaking of His plan; and at no period of His life did He leave men in uncertainty
as to the true nature of His kingdom. He ever proclaimed it to be heavenly and eternal,—to
be one whose commencements are within, in the heart, 119and which is thence to be established visibly. This is clear
even from the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount: and these were undeniably
amongst His earliest public utterances. All His parables, too, in which He gave
expression to His view of the nature of the kingdom of God, are of the same purport.
In them He taught, with special emphasis, that in its development the kingdom of
God would he like the mustard seed, in its mode of operation like leaven: In perfect
consistency with this, is. the position He assigned to John. the Baptist as the
greatest among the prophets, but as, notwithstanding, less than the least in the
economy of the new kingdom of God.146146 Neander, Life of Jesus, fifth ed. p. 138. Not less in harmony with this representation
was the whole character and tenor of His life,—and it was sublimely consistent throughout,—especially as depicted by John the beloved disciple. One whose object was to
found
a new social order on the ruins of the old, must have gone to work in an entirely
different manner. For such a scheme there were undoubtedly abundant materials at
hand in His own commanding spirit, and in the condition of the nation. But then
something more than merely passing disturbances—disturbances which He Himself disdained—would have arisen,147147John vi.
15. and far more decided events would certainly have occurred. But
so far removed was He from anything of this kind, that His inactivity would be inexplicable,
were the supposition in question correct: His conduct, then, would have been not
only without a plan, but contradictory, for no single measure can be pointed out
in His course which can be regarded as having been distinctly adopted to further
political ends. The nature of His operations is only intelligible on the assumption
that, from the very commencement, He had in view the inward renewal of humanity.
The same observation may be made with respect to His discourses. Where can we find
in them a single utterance which decidedly 120announces an external theocracy? The words148148Matt. xix. 27-30. These words belong in all probability to the
latest period of the life of Jesus, when indeed the supposed theocratical plan is
said to have been already renounced. in which He promised
His. disciples a hundredfold recompense in the kingdom of the Son of Man, and which
might possibly be made to bear such a meaning, lose even the appearance of a reference
to an external theocracy, and receive their sole appropriate explanation as a symbolical
representation of future glory, when compared with other passages in which Jesus
sternly repels every ambitious view of His followers, teaches them rather to look
forward to the most painful conflicts, and sets forth the love which is willing
and content to serve, as the true sign and seal of dignity in the kingdom of God.

Some have laboured to show that there is a contrast between the
earlier and later utterances of Jesus, indicative of a change of feelings and views.
This supposition is based on the fact, that whilst at His first public appearances149149Luke iv. 18-24. blessings fell from His lips, at a later period He poured forth denunciations
against the cities which had rejected Him.150150Matt. xi. 20-24. They have likewise inferred, from the
manner in which He threatened the downfall of Jerusalem,151151Luke xix. 41-44. that originally it was
His purpose to effect its political emancipation, and that He only renounced this
design at a subsequent period. But there is no solid ground for such opinions. Not
one of the blessings first pronounced by Jesus has remained in its true sense unfulfilled: as for the curses denounced against
particular cities, they were the natural fruit
of their unbelief. Jesus did desire, indeed, to lead Jerusalem and the Jewish commonwealth
to an increased degree of civil prosperity, but only by means of a moral renewal; and for this His yearning was no less intense
at the close than at the commencement
of His 121career.152152 Compare De Wette, Wesen des christlichen Glaubens, § 52,
p. 268. The only perceivable difference is, that as He drew
towards the termination of His mission, the ardent love He bore to His people expressed
itself more frequently and more strongly in the form of grief at their perversity,
until, last of all, there burst forth the prophetic warning, that their contempt
of inward moral redemption must inevitably result in outward ruin.153153Matt. xxiii. 37-39. Here was the
chief ground of the sadness of Jesus, which, although more obvious and perceptible
at the close of His career, had pervaded His whole life.154154 Oslander, in the above quoted essay, p. 147, justly finds in
the constant harmony of Christ’s inner life a pledge for the unity of His plans,
and designates the contrast between the joyousness of the earlier period of His public ministry and the gloomy seriousness
of the later, a
supposed one. This he then satisfactorily proves by bringing forward particular
instances. His was, then, no faint-hearted
depression and bitterness because of crushed hopes, but a much deeper pain. He was
sad, partly on account of the degradation of His own countrymen, and partly because
of the power of evil over mankind generally,—the evil which rose to its
most fearful height when it caused His own death. His sadness had undoubtedly special
regard to Jerusalem, not, however, because of any discovery He had made that it
was past help of a political nature, but because His fellow-countrymen had now finally
rejected that which would have given them true peace and deliverance. But it is
even more specially asserted, as forming a part of the ‘human development’ of Jesus, that the notion of a suffering Messiah found no place in His mind
at the beginning of His career, and did not arise till a certain definite period,
when, as an entirely new stage of consciousness, it abolished that stage which had
preceded it.155155 Keim, in the above quoted work, pp. 28-32, and elsewhere. Let us see whether this was really the case.

We do not dispute that the notion of suffering and of death 122did but gradually attain increased power and prominence in the
mind of Jesus. In conformity with this, we find that it was not till an expressly
stated occasion that He solemnly disclosed it to His followers;156156Matt. xvi. 21. and this is but
consistent with the successive development which we have already admitted. On the
other hand, we decidedly contend that it was no new notion, opposed to former ideas,
first making its appearance during His public ministry. For such a one could not,
be the result of mere development, but must rather be designated as a mighty revolution,—a
total change in the views of Christ, necessarily involving a corresponding change
of external conduct. Of this, if it had really taken place, we must have found evident
traces, partly in the utterances of Jesus Himself, and partly in intimations by
the apostles, whose perception such a state of things could not possibly have escaped.
On the contrary, the exact reverse to this is found; of which fact we have ample
confirmation from other quarters, without appealing to that somewhat obscure
expression of the earlier days of His ministry concerning the destruction of the
temple.157157John ii. 19.

On the very threshold of Christ’s public life, we meet with the
history of the temptation; and it is impossible not to regard the rejection of
an externally glorious Messiahship—a rejection antecedent to any act of His public
ministry—as the very essence of this narrative.158158 Compare especially Matt. iv. 8-11. And if this be so, what was left
but to seek another kind of glory by the path of conflicts, suffering, and sacrifice? Jesus must indeed have had but little
acquaintance either with His own nation
and the Roman power,—with Pharisaism and the priesthood,—with Himself and the sinful
world,—if He could not foresee, even by mere human prescience, an embittered contest,
and at last a tragic issue. And how does He express Himself? The ideas 123of the self-denial, the sacrifice, the surrender of life, of
losing it that it may be gained, of the dying of the corn of wheat that it may bring
forth fruit, run like a red thread through all His discourses from first to last.
He sends forth His apostles as sheep in the midst of wolves, announces to them calamities
of every kind, and impresses upon their minds this one thing, that it is enough
for the disciple to be as his Master.159159Matt. x. 16-25. Even in the Sermon on the Mount He predicts
hatred and persecution for His name’s sake, to all who should believe in Him;160160Matt. v. 10-12.
He acknowledges as His true disciple only him who denies himself and takes up his
cross;161161Matt. viii. 34, 35; Matt. x. 38, 39. and knows that His people will everywhere have, not power and authority,
but service, subjection, patient endurance of wrong, to the very uttermost. Have
we, indeed, in all this the image of an outwardly triumphant Messiah? Certainly
not; but rather of one who would Himself take up the cross before all others, and
precede them on the path of suffering, even to the very extremity of self-sacrifice.
And that the Lord recognised Himself as the Messiah in this sense, is already shown
by His own words, even at a very early period of His ministry, without appealing
to the above-mentioned more obscure passage.162162e.g. Matt. ix. 15. For more on this subject, see Dorner, Jes.
sündl.
Vollk. pp. 31, 32.

In this point, as well as with regard to the plan of Jesus, we
cannot but hold fast the essential oneness of His views; and though we do admit
a development, it is only such a one as by no means presupposes the existence of
any internal discord in His mind.

142 The phrase,
‘Plan of Jesus,’ has in recent times been so much
in vogue, that it may seem paradoxical to consider it inappropriate; and yet it
is utterly so. The devising of a plan implies an activity of mind which is
far too strongly individual and subjective to be ascribed to Jesus. So also the
acting constantly according to a plan, springs from a one-sided predominance
of reflection, such as He never manifested. That which He was commissioned to do
and to establish was marked out for Him by God and history,—was recognised, not
devised by Him. Hence, although we are not warranted in saying that there was no
connection between His various acts, seeing that in all He did and said He was possessed
and inspired by the loftiest idea still, to assume that all He did was deliberately
planned and intended beforehand, in the common sense of the words, reduces Him to
a lower position than that which He actually occupied, as One filled with the Spirit
and with God. The older terms, office and work of Christ, have much
greater congruity than the modern expression plan. If, however, this term
plan, having usage on its side, is to be retained, let us understand by it
only, as Hase very correctly defines it in his Leben Jesu, § 40, ‘His
subjective conception of the office to which God had appointed Him, without
reference to the collateral use of the word in the sense of: what is arbitrary,
the mere result of reflection.’ Compare Neander’s Life of Jesus, pp. 128, etc., fifth ed.

143 Following in the steps of Von Ammon, De Wette, and some others,
Hase, in the first ed. of his Leben Jesu, published at Leipsic in 1829,
propounded at length the thought of a twofold plan of Jesus,—of a plan which was
at first theocratical, and only became purely, religious subsequently. In
opposition to his view and development of the subject, appeared Heubner, in an
appendix to the fifth ed. of Reinhard’s
Plan Jesu, Wittenb. 1830, pp. 394-407; Lücke, in two programmes of the year
1831, under the title, Examinatur, quæ speciosius nuper commendata est, sententia
de mutato per eventa, adeoque sensim emendato Christi consilio; and J. E. Osiander,
in his article, Ueber die neueren Bearbeitungen des Lebens Jesu von Paulus und Hase, in the Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1831, No. i. pp. 145-148.
My controversy also, in the second ed. of this work, was with Hase. To this opposition,
especially as conducted by Lücke, Hase, with a noble love of truth, did justice,
partly in his Theologische Streitschriften, Leipsic 1834, pp. 61-102, and
partly in the subsequent editions of his Leben Jesu. He adopted from his
antagonists as much as his own convictions would allow him, and sought to unite
the opposed views in the following general result, § 50:—‘Apart from single political
institutions, which are by nature transitory, the plait of Jesus undoubtedly related
to a moral reformation and a spiritual kingdom; but still the Divine law which He
put in force was clearly meant in the course of time to subdue the world, or rather
to pervade it as its highest general law; and He, the King of Truth, intended
to become also a King of the world.’ ‘Jesus must, at one time or other, have
examined and rejected those Messianic hopes which bore a theocratic character,
for the Messianic faith could only reach Him in that form. But there is no proof
whatever that He was led to this examination and rejection by hard experience in
the midst of His career, and not by the clear judgment of His own mind ere He
entered on His work.’

144 Viz. by Keim in his work, Die menschliche Entwickelung
Jesu, pp. 28, etc. He advocates the view that it was not till a certain definite period
of His public ministry that the perception that the Messiah was to be a sufferer
arose upon the mind of Jesus, and that it was at the same time that His idea
of a Messianic kingdom, which was to be in the first place a Jewish one, expanded
into that of a universal spiritual kingdom.

145 Hase, in the first edition of the
Leben Jesu, § 84. Differently in the second and later editions, § 49.

154 Oslander, in the above quoted essay, p. 147, justly finds in
the constant harmony of Christ’s inner life a pledge for the unity of His plans,
and designates the contrast between the joyousness of the earlier period of His public ministry and the gloomy seriousness
of the later, a
supposed one. This he then satisfactorily proves by bringing forward particular
instances.